Between the 17th and the 23rd of January, the week was not ordinary in the Jordanian scene, but seemed like a quiet testing ground for major decisions simmered on a low heat, amid a dense overlap between the economically exhausted interior and the politically turbulent exterior. It was a week not filled with loud headlines, but rich with signals, decisions, and reactions that deserve a careful reading that does not just describe the event, but deciphers its meaning and context.
At the heart of this week, Jordan emerged with the option to consider joining the so-called “Peace Council” proposed by US President Donald Trump, a choice that sparked a deep political and public debate, going beyond the idea of participation or not, to a broader question about Jordan’s regional role and the limits of its movements in an internationally reshaping system outside traditional frameworks. The official stance was characterized by cautious deliberation, not by rash rejection nor by gratuitous acceptance, in harmony with an old Jordanian school based on political realism and risk management rather than leaping into the unknown. The potential engagement, if it occurs, is not read as alignment or delegation, but as an influential presence from within, attempting to modify paths rather than leaving them to be drawn in the absence of the real stakeholders.
This option, while problematic to some, finds its justification in solid geopolitical data; Jordan is not a marginal player in the Palestinian issue, but a structural actor whose national security intersects with any arrangements concerning Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem. Absence from discussion tables does not protect interests, but leaves them exposed to rerendering without a Jordanian voice. Nevertheless, the Jordanian public has clearly expressed its legitimate concern about any path that might lead to the legitimation of solutions that go beyond international law or diminish Palestinian rights, a concern that cannot be underestimated as it reflects a collective political awareness rather than just a fleeting emotion.
Domestically, the government continued to make containment-type economic decisions, including supporting productive sectors, tightening market oversight, and attempts to mitigate the impact of inflation on basic goods. These decisions were met with cautious public interaction; conditional welcome contingent on tangible impact, and criticism of slow implementation and the widening gap between rhetoric and field indicators. The parliament was also present in the scene, through calculated supervisory escalation, focusing on justice in burden distribution and the necessity to protect the middle class, reflecting real pressure from the grassroots, even if it sometimes involved rhetorical or populist discourse.
Socially, Jordanians were occupied with the details of their daily lives which are no less significant than the major politics: the end of supplementary Tawjihi exams, anticipation of results, concern about the cost of living in the winter season, and the impacts of cold weather on the less fortunate. These details, although they may seem ordinary, actually serve as the real compass for measuring the success of public policies, as they touch the unwritten contract between the state and the citizen.
What happened during this week confirms that Jordan stands in a complex gray area, trying to reconcile its political constants with the pressures of the international reality and the impatient domestic requirements. The choice to join the Peace Council, if made, must be conditional, capped, and fortified with clear sovereign red lines, because the danger lies not in participation per se, but in sliding from influence to entanglement. As for the economic challenge, it will not be solved with partial measures, but requires bolder policies that restore confidence and turn numbers into a tangible improvement in people's lives.
The coming weeks will witness more popular and parliamentary pressure, and more tests for the government rhetoric, especially in foreign policy and economy files. But the advice is to manage the stage with a cool mind and a forthright tongue; the state that explains to its citizens the logic of its decisions, not just its intentions, fortifies itself against backlashes, and transforms anxiety into partnership. In times of international fluidity and the deterioration of certainties, Jordan might not have ideal options, but it always has the choice to opt for the least costly, provided that the national interest remains the sole reference, not others’ maps or the haste of the moment.
